The Stacks project

Proposition 11.8.5. Consider a finite central skew field $K$ over $k$. There exists a maximal subfield $k \subset k' \subset K$ which is separable over $k$. In particular, every Brauer class has a finite separable spitting field.

Proof. Since every Brauer class is represented by a finite central skew field over $k$, we see that the second statement follows from the first by Lemma 11.8.3.

To prove the first statement, suppose that we are given a separable subfield $k' \subset K$. Then the centralizer $K'$ of $k'$ in $K$ has center $k'$, and the problem reduces to finding a maximal subfield of $K'$ separable over $k'$. Thus it suffices to prove, if $k \not= K$, that we can find an element $x \in K$, $x \not\in k$ which is separable over $k$. This statement is clear in characteristic zero. Hence we may assume that $k$ has characteristic $p > 0$. If the ground field $k$ is finite then, the result is clear as well (because extensions of finite fields are always separable). Thus we may assume that $k$ is an infinite field of positive characteristic.

To get a contradiction assume no element of $K$ is separable over $k$. By the discussion in Fields, Section 9.28 this means the minimal polynomial of any $x \in K$ is of the form $T^ q - a$ where $q$ is a power of $p$ and $a \in k$. Since it is clear that every element of $K$ has a minimal polynomial of degree $\leq \dim _ k(K)$ we conclude that there exists a fixed $p$-power $q$ such that $x^ q \in k$ for all $x \in K$.

Consider the map

\[ (-)^ q : K \longrightarrow K \]

and write it out in terms of a $k$-basis $\{ a_1, \ldots , a_ n\} $ of $K$ with $a_1 = 1$. So

\[ (\sum x_ i a_ i)^ q = \sum f_ i(x_1, \ldots , x_ n)a_ i. \]

Since multiplication on $K$ is $k$-bilinear we see that each $f_ i$ is a polynomial in $x_1, \ldots , x_ n$ (details omitted). The choice of $q$ above and the fact that $k$ is infinite shows that $f_ i$ is identically zero for $i \geq 2$. Hence we see that it remains zero on extending $k$ to its algebraic closure $\overline{k}$. But the algebra $K \otimes _ k \overline{k}$ is a matrix algebra (for example by Lemmas 11.4.9 and 11.5.3), which implies there are some elements whose $q$th power is not central (e.g., $e_{11}$). This is the desired contradiction. $\square$


Comments (2)

Comment #104 by zhang on

There is a typo in the proof. In the second paragraph, row 3 it should be , the second k shall not be captain K.

There are also:

  • 2 comment(s) on Section 11.8: Splitting fields

Post a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked.

In your comment you can use Markdown and LaTeX style mathematics (enclose it like $\pi$). A preview option is available if you wish to see how it works out (just click on the eye in the toolbar).

Unfortunately JavaScript is disabled in your browser, so the comment preview function will not work.

All contributions are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.




In order to prevent bots from posting comments, we would like you to prove that you are human. You can do this by filling in the name of the current tag in the following input field. As a reminder, this is tag 0752. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.